Since I am not able to spend nearly as much time in the park or able to stay deeply involved with the events that go on each day, I'm asking what you think the likely result of this Tax Sale will be. Assuming the worst comes true and the Tax Sale happens, what do you think will happen to the property? Is it realistic someone would come in to buy a dilapidated amusement park to continue to operate it as such? OR are we likely going to see the park become prime real estate?

The reason why I am looking to the scenario of the Tax Sale actually happening is that I do not see any side of this issue working together to develop any reasonable solution.

So hypothetically assuming the Tax Sale happens September 26, 2014, what will Conneaut Lake Park be after that date?

Assuming the Upset Tax Sale occurs on 26SEP2014, one of two results seem most likely.

1.) A party makes the minimal bid and then takes ownership of the property.

Under that scenario, in addition to paying the back taxes due plus the administrative costs of conducting the Upset Tax Sale, the new owner will need to settle on the several million more reported owed on the multitude of commercial liens filed on the property.

Then, on top of that, per the Trust, as the requirements of the Trust are not being examined or nullified in the Upset Tax Sale process, the new owner will be required to operate the Park under the very same Trust restrictions which have controlled the property for the last near two decades.

Per the Trust, the new owner is obligated to preserve and and maintain Conneaut Lake Park for historical and cultural and social and recreational and civic purpose, etc., for the benefit of the community and the general public, and all related matters; all forever.”

The new owner might have a possible case in petitioning the court to break and nullify the Trust. But as the court has ruled it to be legally viewed as a public trust, the new owner will have to spend the significant legal fees to document and clearly prove to the court that the Trust has failed beyond any reasonable hope of succeeding.

That argument becomes a bit cloudy as the new owner actively bid on and purchased the property fully knowing the restrictions on the property and of the demanding expectations of the Trust, and the court could go either way.

I’m sort of thinking the court leans toward “close but no cigars”.

2.) The second more likely option, there are no bids received on the property at the Upset Tax Sale.

The County assumes ownership of the property and begin the process of preparing the property for the Judicial Tax Sale the following year.

The normal preparation is the County petitions the Court to waive and nullify all the liens filed on the property, eliminating the accrued unpaid commercial debts, so the County can then sell the property free and clear.

The ringer in the second scenario remains the restrictions of the Trust.

The discussion has been that the County will petition the Court to break and nullify the trust, as in not paying the property taxes and ending up in a tax sale, the Trust has failed, with no hope of succeeding.

That, too, remains to be seen if the County will swallow that argument.

I'm sort of leaning towards the Court says "Yea verily, so be it"

A third possibility is Trust is not broken, the property does not sell at the Judicial Tax Sale, and then is place in a Repository property status, owned by the County.

I’m not sure how Crawford County handles their 3rd-tier unsold Repository properties, but usually the property sits idle until someone makes a bid on it. And usually there is no actual minimum bid, but the expectation is low ball bids will not be accepted. The County gets the final determination on what constitutes a "low-ball" bid, so it remains to be seen what amount is actually ever recovered on the property.

At that point I suspect there would be sufficient evidence that the Trust has failed in its entirety, which would likely support either the County getting the Trust broken, or making a deal with the potential buyer to work in cahoots to finance the legal proceedings to get the failed Trust broken and nullified.

It is a bit difficult to see the Park operating after the 2014 season, as in September the County likely assumes ownership.

However, the Conneaut Lake Business Association does have their 2014 Pumpkin Fest web site up and running, including activities in Park listed on their site for October this year.

It is going to be an interesting year and we’ll eventually see if the choice is made, with due apologies to ‘Let’s Make a Deal’, for what is behind curtain #1, curtain #2, or curtain #3; or, go for the box on the stand in front of where Carol is standing on the stage.

Reading the tea leaves at this point...... the park sails through the tax upset with no bidders. The county works a deal where the trust is dissolved, but a permanent deed restriction is placed on the property that states the lakefront properties, or a percentage of said properties, remain available for public access. Amusement section, either in whole, or in part, is subject to a redevelopment timeline.

The situation has been festering for so long that it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that a developer doesn't already have an overlay of the property ready to go, especially with the former golf course currently available to boot._________________I can cure all the problems for CLP. I just need the means to execute the plan.

what if.......and this is strictly me thinking out loud, what if the plan all along is for the county to own it? There are already many, many county owned properties...it reverts to county ownership at the first tax sale, the sheriffs sale if you will, correct? Then, typically, they go thru the process of preparing it for the next sale, the judicial sale......but what if they dont want to sell it.....do they have to put it up for sale, or they could just assume ownersip of it? what if they want to operate it, like they do Col Crawford park....it's possible, right? If the county operated it, they could do so and still maintain the trust aspects of it

JimmyT I thought about that possibility, especially with Jack Lynch currently sitting as a commissioner, but unless they could run it like a county fairgrounds, I would think that would not be a popular course of action. Besides, government tends to do things on the cheap, and that wouldn't be much further from the current situation. Anything is possible though...._________________I can cure all the problems for CLP. I just need the means to execute the plan.

On the one hand, Canon City, Colorado built and owns Royal Gorge Bridge Park lock, stock and barrel, and just this past year had the park literally wiped out with a forest fire, with the signature bridge fortunately only sustaining minor damage.

They were clearing over a mill a year into the city coffers, and aggressively pursued scraping the grounds clean to rebuild the amusement park attractions, using the opportunity to make multi-million dollar improvements.

But then it is Royal Gorge, with a near century-old 1,000ft high shaky and bouncing suspension bridge which looks like it is made of toothpicks, and they aren’t saddled with a crippling dysfunctional trust, and are endeavoring to make as much profit as possible from the Centennial State’s wild west tourists.

On the other hand, folks were whining ad nauseum about the dearth of amusement-park experienced trustees on the current CLP board. One can imagine what the County would be forced to come up with struggling to form a new volunteer, non-paid board of trustees, particularly after the AG is willing to go after the incomes of the trustees’ other real jobs.

Then, too, the last reports has the County losing $50,000 a year running Colonel Crawford Park. Doesn’t bode well for looking to pick up another park already millions in debt and in desperate need of a complete multi-million rebuilding. Its likely near a million just to scrape the property clean to make grass fields.

Bay Beach in Wisconsin. Government owned and operated amusement park.
While I haven't been there yet, everything I have read about it, it is a great family park, and the rides and grounds are kept in near perfect shape.

Free admission, and tickets for rides are 25 cents. Most rides are 1 - 2 tickets with the exception of the new coaster which cost 4 tickets.

From what I was reading the Mayor of Green Bay got a lot of bad publicity for allowing the new coaster to be built, but they figured it would pay for itself in 2 - 3 years if I remember correctly.

Though, not withstanding that Bay Beach Park isn’t hampered with a crippling, dysfunctional, un-breakable non-profit public trust,
- actually pays its management generate a profit,
- is second only to the Green Bay Packers in people visits for the area, -does not owe millions in decades old unpaid debts,
-and its 2011 revenue was up 50% to $2.5 million,

…just the simple basic numbers of reality:

Bay Beach Amusement Park sits in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
-Green Bay has a population of 104,868
-Green Bay has a population density of 2,288 residents per square mile.
-Green Bay has 42,642 households.
-Green Bay has a median household income of $42,584
-Green Bay’s total annual median household income is $1.8 billion

In comparison, the bulk of CLP sits in Summit Township
Summit Township has a population of 2,172 has a population of 2,172
……98% less than Green Bay
- Summit Township has a population density of 83 residents per square mile.
…… 96% less than Green Bay
- Summit Township has 900 households.
…… 98% less than Green Bay
- Summit Township has a median household income of $41,664
…… 22% less than Green Bay
- Summit Township total annual median household income is $38 million
…… 98% less than Green Bay

Bumping it up a notch and looking at the next larger potential municipal tier:

-Green Bay Wisconsin the county seat of Brown County.
-Brown County has a population of 253,000
-Brown County has a population density of 478 residents per square mile.
-Brown County’s population has an annual 2% population grow,
-Brown County has a has a poverty rate of 10.9%
-Brown County has 98.171 households.
-Brown County has a median household income of $53,419
-Brown County’s total annual median household income is $5.2 billion

In comparison, Crawford County has a population of 87,598
……67% less than Brown County
-Crawford County has a population density of 86 residents per square mile.
…… 82% less than Brown County
-Crawford County’s population has an annual population LOSS of 1.3%.
…… less than Brown County
- Crawford County has a has a poverty rate of 16.8%.
…… 54% higher than Brown County
- Crawford County has 35,232 households.
…… 64% less than Brown County
- Crawford County has a median household income of $41,664
…… 22% less than Brown County
-Crawford County’s total median household income is $1.4 billion.
…… 73% less than Brown County

The Green Bay city plan is to pump a million dollars a year for the next 20 year in improvements into the park.

CLP’s revenue last year was reported a little under $300,000, and aprx half the back property taxes were paid off this year with fire insurance payouts.

Bull, thanks for contributing. It is always better to have more voices offering input and ideas. I wish more folks would contribute here instead of just reading.

As Gore is fond of doing, he presents the issues with relevant factors that need taken into consideration. I think people are getting too focused on the amusement section and are formulating plans geared toward that aspect. It is flawed as it relates to CLP. The amusement park is but one aspect of the property. The amusement park sits within a resort. Any plan to save the amusement park first would be flawed from the start. Attention needs to be paid to the resort aspect first, for that is what draws, and keeps, the paying customer on the property.

We should not be using models of successful amusement parks per se, but models of successful resorts, or resort areas. If you want to look at that type of model, check into places like Kingsmill Resort in Virginia, the Powhatan Resort in Virginia, and even the Split Rock Resort in the Pocono area of PA. For similar amusement park locations I would look at Indiana Beach because it is located in a resort area, right on a man made lake. For a a successful amusement park model of success, one could look to Holiday World and Knoebels.

The amusement park will not survive without the resort to draw people. Having the golf course back into the fold, with a new modern hotel experience, multiple restaraunt selections, and strategically located adult entertainment facilities all located next to, or close by, a scenic lake setting, that is the savior of the amusement section. The resort will also allow the cottages, mini golf and go carts, and other local attractions to spring up again, spurring the local economy allowing the resort atmosphere to encompass the entire lake. The lake is the draw, not simply the amusement park, or the hotel, or the beach club, or the golf course, or the park fries, IT IS THE LAKE.

I will renew my catch line. The future of the property rests in its development in the past. The RESORT has regressed to a point consistent with its past, now use the blueprint provided by those whom originally made it successful to reinvent it for the future. That did not include replacing lost structures with exact replicas. The theory and development of Exposition Park is still viable, just with a state of the art influence._________________I can cure all the problems for CLP. I just need the means to execute the plan.

Gore, let me start by saying I am truly amazed by you wealth of knowledge of the park and it's history. Also I am jealous that you got to grow up in the park, basically as a park "brat." I remember going to the park as a kid thinking how cold it would have been to have been to own a cottage in the park. My time vacationing to the park was in the early 80s, which I guess was the start of the decline, but as kids we thought the place was perfect.

While I can see where you are coming from with your statistics about Green Bay vs. Summit Township, the only question I would have is back in the day when the park was booming, how many of the visitors were out from out of town, or "up eres" as I am always called. We traveled from Pittsburgh to come to the park, which I would guess a majority of the park patrons were, especially on the weekends. Just thinking comparing Green Bay to Summit Township is not really getting the full picture of the market the park could potentially have, and has had in the past.

Wraith, I agree with what you say about Gore, he always has the cold hard facts. Sometimes comes off to me as a little harsh, but always truthful, and as I said above I respect his knowledge, as well as everyone else on these boards. I have been reading since way back in the Hey Martha days, but just don't post a lot.

I also agree what you say about focusing on the resort. That is why our family went there as kids. There was something there for all three generations of the family to do. My parents knew that my brother and I could run around and have fun and they didn't have to worry about us, as long as we checked in at the appropriate time. My parents could hang out at the beach and have a few drinks, and eat and do what they wanted. My Grandparents enjoyed the music,scenery, and people watching. And there was a lot more that I am not mentioning, but I agree with you, needs to be more than the the rides.

I guess the point I was trying to make, and I can't believe I am saying this as I work for a quite large state owned institution, that if done correctly a government owned and operated entity could work. I was running with the idea that someone brought up earlier about maybe reverting it to the county was the plan.

Either way, if something doesn't happen soon, there isn't going to be much to worry about saving anyway!

Also, I agree about Knoebles. Knoebles is now to my daughter what CLP was to me as a kid. We go there at least a week a year camping, but she always dreams about what it would be like to be able to camp there permanently. I enjoy the setting of CLP much better, on the lake, with the hotel and such, but just not enough to keep my family busy for more than a few hours any more.

...many of the visitors were out from out of town, or "up eres" as I am always called...

Bull, thanx for the kind words. :<)

However, you are not an “up ere”, but rather a “Muphere” as in “muphere from da burgh”.

Growing up in the Park is what it was.

While it offered numerous insights and skills which have clearly benefited me through out journey down life’s road, the fact remains I left as soon that door of opportunity opened, and never returned.

In fact, of all the ‘park brats’ over the decades, I only know of one who actually still lives there, and that ‘park brat’ only moved into the park and then out for a short period during their teenage age years. I suspect their return to the park has a lot more to do with the relatively nice, solid, mid-century, year round house they were able to purchase within the park.

The rest of us, those born and raised there, have beat feet. Many still live in the area. Though, many like myself, have left the area permanently.

To me, it’s my home town, where I grew up and developed the foundations of my life value system. It is not a amusement park, much less the dilapidated, horror-film genre location it has become. No different than the hundreds of near-ghost farming communities dotting the great plains.

There are a few current park full time residents who were, like you, former visitors who for what ever reason have settled down in the park. But the reality is living in an amusement park is not appealing as it may seem.

The overwhelming majority of folks with park memories are visitors who gained those memories during the summers. I understand that. All my cousins to this day relate how special it was to come visit us at the park, and always note how cool it had to be to live in the park .

However, the cold truth is the best of times were in the off season. And on the infrequent occasions I do visit, the vast majority of those visits occur during the off season.

The cold truth is my hometown is nothing more than a failed business entity, and an entity which has cost far more the community over the last two decades than the community has gained.

It has failed, has failed miserably, and will continue to be a burden on the community in its current life.

It will never once again be what can only lives on today in the memories of folks who came to visit for a few days then returned to their homes elsewhere. They currently visit and re-live their CLP memories on the CLP Memories FACEBOOK page, and not the ghetto the park is today, and will remain until that amusement park book is finally closed.

Bull wrote:

…I was running with the idea that someone brought up earlier about maybe reverting it to the county was the plan.

That is certainly an idea, though most likely not an idea espoused by a local.

Clearly, from all reports, the plan is not to have the property revert to the county. The stated plan is to recover the lost property taxes and allow the property to move out of its costly 20-year old dismal circumstances.

There is a solid reason why the Park has never been put up as a ballot issue for government support. It will seriously crash and burn even before making the ballot.

On the other hand, the county is firmly on record making solid, determine efforts to redevelop Conneaut Lake town. There’s the trade-off, pay-off or what ever you want to call it

The park as an amusement park and/or resort destination is officially dead.

I chuckle at the several postings on other sites where mupheres state if the County doesn’t save the park, they will take their money elsewhere.

Bye-bye, Nice seeing you. Thanks for your business. Have fun.

When it comes to the park, the park property is in the process of moving on to the next tax-producing evolution which it will be, what ever turns out to be.

Odds are very high such won’t involve an amusement park or a destination resort.

pianotech1 wrote:

…Wouldn't it be funny if Park Restorations, LLC was the sole bidder?

As reported in the news media:

Park Restoration tried to sue the CLP Board last year to make the Trustees resign new leases on the Beach Club and hotel.

Park Restoration stated they were experiencing difficulty securing commercial financing because their Club and hotel leases were not registered, recorded, and on file at the Crawford County Record’s Office.

As a result of not being recorded, when the commercial lending firms check with the County Recorders’ Office, they discovered the leases are not on file and not available as legally documented records for examination and verification.

As a result, the lending firms were not interested in making commercial loans for non-registered, ergo legally non-existent, leased-property businesses.

When Park Restoration learned of such, Park Restoration tried to register their leases with the County Recorder.

To be recognized as official legal documents and registered at the County Reocorder’s Office as such, Park Restoration’s Beach Club and hotel leased were required to be notarized.

Notarized documents are required to be witnessed and signed in the presence of an official Notary Public in order to be notarized.

Park Restorations did not have their multi-decade Beach Club and hotel leases notarized because Park Restoration stated they did not know such was required.

Ergo the near-laughed-out-of-court suit failed to require the Trustees to sign Beach Club and hotel new leases for Park Restoration.

I suspect the Trustees might have been inclined to sign new leases, however there are the well documented reports of how Park Restoration has screwed the Trustees over at seemingly every turn, and the chickens have come home to roost.

Park Restoration could certainly bid on the Park property in the up coming tax sale process.

Though, given Park Restoration’s admission they are experiencing difficulty in securing capital investment loans, Park Restoration is likely going to have a cash reservoir of several millions of dollars to do so.

A bona fide commercial land developer that intrinsically knows the legal ins and out will crush any efforts by any amateur inn and bar keeps in a biding process to buy the Park properties.

FANTASY: Is what some of us talk about while the property is still physically there, we can see it, touch it, smell it, and hope to keep it. It is also full of manifestations of white horses and calvaries coming to save the day.

REALITY: Is that part that when looking at a situation with all the facts and circumstances staring you in the face, that burning sensation begins to melt the good intentions and thoughts of butterflies and pixy dust fairies. Where for a short instance, the logic and truth begin to take over and knowing, intelligent, and voluntary conclusions start to flow.

THE PROBLEM: Human Nature! Humans tend to let their emotions override their logic. The whole process could be averted if reality traveled swiftly and slayed the fantasy created by what ifs and could happens.

The solution should be to let the process play itself out and then offer input. The best way to prepare for that is to be able to balance fantasy on a good dose of reality. Some have been able to do that, some not so much. Human nature dictates that most folks want to read the end of the book before the beginning of the book, and that they will pass judgment on an issue based on emotion before having all the facts. Americans have made a sport out of guilty until proven innocent.

POINT: Enjoy what you had, what you still have, dream about what you could have in the future, but also respect that it can be taken away at any time, unless you have the means to influence the outcome. Trust the facts and the circumstances and you will be much more capable of dealing with reality when it comes calling.

I like to think I have been able to convey those feelings over the years. Whatever happens to the property, I can handle it, but I have to wait for the process to play out, no matter how much I wish for it to go one way or the other. I will visit the area no matter what happens because it is more than just the property for me._________________I can cure all the problems for CLP. I just need the means to execute the plan.

And to GORES point about the locals. I can respect what the locals feel about the situation. They have chosen, for their own reasons, to not make an effort to remedy the situation and allow it to drag the local economy and development with it.

The people of Conneaut Lake proper, and those of Sadsbury and Summit Township, have quite the decision to make. Do you continue to portray yourself as a vacation/resort town and cater to that, or do you shift course and try to attract a more tax base friendly industrial or service sector economy? Those investment dollars from the state were mostly cosmetic improvements to improve appearance, not for a change in economic philosophy. If that property ceases to exist as an economic attraction, the local economy will cease as well with nothing else to fall back on. You think it is a ghost town now? Services will be cut and taxes will go up to compensate. And when the NIMBY folks show up and muddy any attempts to develop a tax producer, what happens then?

There is much more to the outcome of this property than just the survival of an old nostalgic amusement park. The future of the entire lake area may be hanging in the balance._________________I can cure all the problems for CLP. I just need the means to execute the plan.